Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Case No. 72079-11-24
Israel · May 12, 2025
IsraelEditorial impact: highfake citationsfamilytrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's counsel cited non-existent case law in the 6.5.2025 reply; the court could not locate the citations and counsel admitted on 7.5.2025 they were invented due to a mistakenly filed draft. Outcome: No immediate sanction imposed; the matter was referred to the Legal Department of the Court Administration for review and potential action, including referral to the Ethics Committee of the Israel Bar Association.
- Why the court cared
- The court referred to several other recent Israeli cases to underscore the growing recognition of AI hallucination risk in legal practice. It reiterated the requirement for attorneys to meticulously verify any citation before submission and warned that future similar instances may not receive such lenient treatment
- Why it matters now
- Separating personal AI drafts from court filings requires a verification checkpoint—one wrong-file error triggers bar referral.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's counsel cited non-existent case law in the 6.5.2025 reply; the court could not locate the citations and counsel admitted on 7.5.2025 they were invented due to a mistakenly filed draft. Outcome: No immediate sanction imposed; the matter was referred to the Legal Department of the Court Administration for review and potential action, including referral to the Ethics Committee of the Israel Bar Association.
AI Use
Counsel explained that the hallucinated citations were included in a draft intended for personal legal research and learning, which was mistakenly filed with the court. This constituted an implicit admission that generative AI tools were involved.
Ruling/Sanction
While Judge Itay Katz did not impose personal costs, he referred the matter to the Legal Department of the Judicial Authority to determine whether further steps—including referral to the Israel Bar Association Ethics Committee—should be taken. The court emphasized this was done as a gesture of leniency with the hope that such behavior will not recur.
Key Judicial Reasoning
The court referred to several other recent Israeli cases to underscore the growing recognition of AI hallucination risk in legal practice. It reiterated the requirement for attorneys to meticulously verify any citation before submission and warned that future similar instances may not receive such lenient treatment.
Operational lesson
Separating personal AI drafts from court filings requires a verification checkpoint—one wrong-file error triggers bar referral.
Record details
CourtIsrael
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateMay 12, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeNo immediate sanction imposed; the matter was referred to the Legal Department of the Court Administration for review and potential action, including referral to the Ethics Committee of the Israel Bar Association
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionYes
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
not established
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture
No immediate sanction imposed; the matter was referred to the Legal Department of the Court Administration for review and potential action, including referral to the Ethics Committee of the Israel Bar Association
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's counsel cited non-existent case law in the 6.5.2025 reply; the court could not locate the citations and counsel admitted on 7.5.2025 they were invented due to a mistakenly filed draft.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Case No. 72079-11-24?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's counsel cited non-existent case law in the 6.5.2025 reply; the court could not locate the citations and counsel admitted on 7.5.2025 they were invented due to a mistakenly filed draft. Outcome: No immediate sanction imposed; the matter was referred to the Legal Department of the Court Administration for review and potential action, including referral to the Ethics Committee of the Israel Bar Association.
- Why does Case No. 72079-11-24 matter for legal AI risk?
- Separating personal AI drafts from court filings requires a verification checkpoint—one wrong-file error triggers bar referral.
- What does the public record establish about Case No. 72079-11-24?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Case No. 72079-11-24 summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.